Sometimes I wonder if multiple bits of the universe big banged all at once, but the other banged bits are still outside the visible limits of our bits, and the unexplained accelerating expansion of our bit is caused by the gravitational pull of the other bits as they start to get closer or overlap around the edges. Maybe one day we'll all be blinded by the light of another big bang finally reaching us.

/this conjecture not supported by any significant knowledge or critical thinking on my part.

incendi:Sometimes I wonder if multiple bits of the universe big banged all at once, but the other banged bits are still outside the visible limits of our bits, and the unexplained accelerating expansion of our bit is caused by the gravitational pull of the other bits as they start to get closer or overlap around the edges. Maybe one day we'll all be blinded by the light of another big bang finally reaching us.

/this conjecture not supported by any significant knowledge or critical thinking on my part.

urban.derelict:No, because you miss the entire premise of the big bang. Not only did matter not exist (in this universe) time also did not exist.

/fan of superstring theory//i thought the same thing as you///when i was 8 years old

No, I don't. Maybe I should have made it clearer that that's inebriated late-night science channel conjecture, not intended to be a factual representation of my actual opinions on how the universe came to be. I'm pretty solidly on board with the consensus view, although I have to take the math on faith. And my similarly math-limited understanding of superstring theory gives my inner musician a woody.

Everything in the universe has symmetry. (for the most part) This is because of gravity.

So could the big bang simply be a "white hole," the opposite of a black hole? Sure it's abstract, but why is that not possible? Couldn't we be living in a multiverse where each universe is actually the core contents of a black hole exploded out?

The LBT in Arizona has completed a long exposure image of area shown in the Hubble picture. Under that magnification it has been determined that the arc is actually just letters that read "Drink More Ovaltine"

RolandGunner:The LBT in Arizona has completed a long exposure image of area shown in the Hubble picture. Under that magnification it has been determined that the arc is actually just letters that read "Drink More Ovaltine"

hawcian:Pick: Article did not really state why the galaxy should not be there. But it is there, so saying it should not be there is wrong. Makes you wonder what else is wrong in the article.

He linked to the explanation, which is basically an entire paper on the cluster. I'm not sure BA wanted to go into all the math and physics of explaining it.

The model the discoverers used predicts that there is no chance of a bright galaxy at that distance being exactly lined up with a cluster large enough to lens the image. Which means one or more of the factors in the model, or even the model itself is invalid. Maybe there are more bright galaxies or large clusters than expected. Or maybe it's a freak alignment due to random variation. If they find a second example, it's time for new ideas. Giving up your model and starting over is hard. But people do it. That's why it's called a hard science.

Pretty unlikely. Looking at the things at the end of the universe isn't quite the same as taking pictures of that drunk slore with your cell phone as she slobs your knob in the dark corner of the club.

Isn't the word in the song actually "deuce"? "Deuce" was a common term at the time of Springsteen's youth for a kind of sporty car. Despite how it sounds when he sings it -- and let's be honest, he munges a LOT of words when he sings -- I find it much easier to believe that the Boss is talking about revving a car than a femine hygiene product.